Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Threshold deontology (Scheffler, Moore) holds that constr... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Deontological constraints cannot be rejected simply because complying with them produces worse aggregate states of affairs.

    Threshold deontology (Scheffler, Moore) holds that constraints lose their binding force when consequences become sufficiently catastrophic.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Moral constraints (e.g., don't kill innocents) derive their justification from protecting human welfare; catastrophic outcomes that dwarf ordinary harms override this justification.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Absolute constraints create perverse incentives: refusing a small rights violation to prevent extinction suggests morality itself becomes self-defeating at extreme stakes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Intuitions strongly support threshold exceptions: few believe we must respect someone's autonomy if honoring it causes civilization's collapse.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Thresholds lack principled boundaries: any determination of 'sufficiently catastrophic' requires arbitrary line-drawing that invites abuse and erosion of constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Constraints protect us from ourselves by limiting what we can justify; threshold exceptions restore exactly the consequentialist reasoning that constraints were meant to constrain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Catastrophic scenarios are empirically rare and often speculative; permitting constraint-violations for low-probability tail risks shifts moral certainty into uncertainty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    Absolute constraints create perverse incentives: refusing a small rights violati...Catastrophic scenarios are empirically rare and often speculative; permitting co...Constraints protect us from ourselves by limiting what we can justify; threshold...Deontological constraints cannot be rejected simply because complying with them ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Intuitions strongly support threshold exceptions: few believe we must respect so...Moral constraints (e.g., don't kill innocents) derive their justification from p...Thresholds lack principled boundaries: any determination of 'sufficiently catast...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit